Avodah Mailing List

Volume 07 : Number 040

Tuesday, May 15 2001

• VIDC #10: MC vol. 1p. 116
• Re: Maaser (was: Working Women and Kollel Husbands)
• Re: Maaser (was: Working Women and Kollel Husbands)
• Re: Mekatreig
• RE: mothers day- assur?
• Re: VIDC #9: MC vol. 1 p. 98
• Sherut Leumi
• SL and AishDas
• Sherut Leumi and the Chazon Ish
• re: Mekatreig
• gazing at the moon
• Does the Torah include all of Maddah?
• Making 3 Shidduchim
• Re: Sherut Leumi and the Chazon Ish
• Re: Sherut Leumi and the Chazon Ish
• Re: Sherut Leumi and the Chazon Ish
• Shalosh Shevuos and Lubavitch
• Re: gazing at the moon
• Counting misas beis din amongst the Taryag

OK, I think this will go better than last week's VIDC:

The Steipler BK 60b, os Beis (the Mareh Makom is from the MC, so it may be 
different depending on what edition of the Kehillos Ya'akov you have) asks 
on the Gemoro there 26b that states that if "Reuven" threw keilim off the 
roof, but there were, at the time, pillows and cushions underneath; then 
"Shimon" comes and removes those pillows and cushions, that Shimon is pattur.

Asks the Steipler, why is Shimon not liable like anyone who creates or 
opens a Bor in reshus ho'rabbim - the hard ground under the pillows and 
cushions is a Bor vis a vis the falling keili, and the removal of the 
pillows and cushions is the creation or opening thereof?

VIDC?

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

> Also, and this requires personal honesty, when one is desparate for funds,
> should one be giving ma'aser at all? This is partly dependent on the
> machlokes whether ma'aser is a din or a minhag. I know that R. Hershel
> Schachter tells yungerleit who are supported by kollel stipends and
> parents not to give ma'aser.

What's the rationale for such a psak? (A) Yungerleit supported by kollel
stipends and parents are "desperate for funds" and this should patur
them from ma'aser, or (B) that kollel stipends and parental gifts for a
particular purpose are exempt (there are a number of sevarohs for this).
The nafka mina is whther a person "desperate for funds", but earning
wages could forgo giving ma'aser from those wages...

On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 02:45:11PM -0400, Yitzchok Willroth wrote:
:>                                                 I know that R. Hershel
:> Schachter tells yungerleit who are supported by kollel stipends and
:> parents not to give ma'aser.
: 
: What's the rationale for such a psak? (A) Yungerleit supported by kollel
: stipends and parents are "desperate for funds" and this should patur
: them from ma'aser, or (B) that kollel stipends and parental gifts for a
: particular purpose are exempt (there are a number of sevarohs for this).

How about "ma'aser kesafim" is a hanhagah or perhaps a minhag, and the
kellal shouldn't be chayav to give people an extra 11% for the kollelnik
to be able to afford to follow a hanhagah?

As I have yet to hear of a ra'ayah that this wonderful idea (trying to
make sure people don't think I'm against it) actually should be treated
like a din, I don't understand all of the discussion about its details.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 33rd day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            4 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Hod sheb'Hod: LAG B'OMER - What is total
(973) 916-0287                        submission to truth, and what results?

> And it's not just a modern back-formation, either, Jastrow attests it in 
> Yerushalmi and Midrash Rabbah - maybe it's an EY-dialect word?  Was Midrash 
> Rabbah edited in EY?
     
The various books of Midrash Rabbah was compiled very late, late gaonic to early
rishonic period (the Maharatz Chajes discusses this in his Iggeres Bikores in 
the second volume of his Kol Sifrei).  If so, you can be sure it was not done in
EY.  I would guess Bavel.  However, the compilation was likely from earlier 
texts so the words can date back to Talmudic EY.

Gil Student

FWIW, here is R' SY Weinberg's opinion regarding Mothers Day:

A talmid once asked the Rosh Yeshiva ZTL whether it was improper to
acknowledge and 'observe' Mother's Day. The Rosh Yeshiva ZTL responded
that he saw nothing wrong with the concept of dedicating a day to be
mechabed mothers. It is a kiyum of Kibud Aim. The issue though is whether
dedicating one day of the year for giving special honor to one's mother
detracts from the rest of the year's kavod. Do children say to themselves
that they've patured themselves for a whole year now or not.

The Rosh Yeshiva ZTL felt that for goyim it is a nice idea because the
honor for parents in society is at a low point so at least for one day
they have kavod. For Yidden, the Rosh Yeshiva ZTL felt (although he said
he wasn't sure) that it may have a detrimental effect in lessening kavod
the rest of year.


KT and Gut Shabbos,
Aryeh
aryehstein@yahoo.com

On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 02:55:59AM -0500, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
: While this would not answer the Shitta on its own terms, I would be sorely 
: tempted to apply Rubba d'Issa Kamman vs. Rubba d'Leisa Kamman principles. 
: The former is a Leisa Kamman and the latter an Issa Kamman.

: Alternately, one can employ Rov b'Teva vs. Rov b'Mikreh.

First, a question that has been bugging me for a while -- how does one
distinguish between a rubba deleisa likaman that is rov miderech teva
from a chazakah disvara? Both are rules of thumb based on how the world
runs.

Second, they are both leisa likaman. In order to have a rov di'isa likaman
we'd have to have all newborn baby boys or all women who just gave birth
in one place, and we could count them and say that more than half are
chayavim lishaleim.

So, I'd go with beteva vs bemikreh.

Particularly since a chazakah disvarah, which I don't see as
being significantly different, is sufficient ra'ayah to be motzi
meichaveiro. (E.g. Kesuvos 75b, but there are many such cases.)

: The Maitchiter klerrs whether Ein holchin b'Mammon achar ha'Rov is because 
: of semoch mi'utta l'chazoko v'isra lei rubba, or because no matter how many 
: sefeikos you are marbeh - rov still remains a form of a safek - ha'motzi 
: mei'chaveiro alav ha'ra'ayah - and a safek is not a ra'ayah...

Going back to one of my more favorite cites, the teshuvas R' Akiva Eiger
(136) on the subject, there are two types of birur: birur of the metzi'us
and birur of the halachah.

Rov is a means of determining halachah in the face of being unable to
determine the metzi'us. Which would fit with what you're quoting here.
With the exception of rov beteva, which you're treating different in
mechanics.

To prove the case, you'd have to find a case where we follow rov beteva
even if kavu'a (the case RAE tries to explain) or perhaps bimakom
terei utrei (which I argued here repeatedly in the past has the same
mechanics). That would demonstrate that it's birur of metzi'us, IOW,
a ra'ayah.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 36th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            5 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Chesed sheb'Yesod: What is the kindness in
(973) 916-0287                          being a stable and reliable partner?

I feel I am being dragged against my will into this conversation. I am
asking Micha's to move it onto Avodah, in order to treat it on higher
level of intellectual analysis.

The bottom line is that the Chazon Ish paskened that Sherut Leumi is
a form of "lo yilbash" and worse. With his extraordinary Torah acumen,
he proposed that any "misgeret" that is regimented by the State or other
Governmental Authority is Avizryhu d'Arayos.

To my mind, this is very similar to the Chazon Ish's chiddush that
completing an electric circuit is a form of Boneh: precisely because there
are no ra'ayos to argue, only ko'ach ha'sevoro, this is a case where *you*
(and you know who you are :-) ) are pitting your ko'ach ha'sevoro against
the CI.

The difference is that in the area of Electricity, there was a gadol
b'Torah gavoha me'shichmo vo'ma'alah whose ko'ach ha'sevor, from our
perspective b'tachtis ho'hor, is on the same astroplane as that of the
CI: RSZA.

There is no such posek - at least in the Charedi camp - who has disputed
the CI on this matter. Indeed, it is said that RYIHH (Rav Herzog)
died over this matter - he could not bring himself to be mattir nor
to asser, and the anguish killed him (I do not know if this is true -
azoi zogt men).

In this respect, it cannot be said that anything has changed: The CI was
not promulgating a socio-economically based prohibition that may change;
he was stating his eternal and unchanging interpretation of the extent
of the prohibition of women being part of an army.

Thus, while there are poskim in the DL camp that disagree, the
conversation may thus center on the locus of that disagreement.

As the conversation has been carried on here, it is entirely
inappropriate.

I feel slightly bewildered, front the vantage point of a chaver in the 
AishDas Society, as to the concept of Sherut Leumi as discussed here in 
general. We, of the AishDas Society, are of the opinion that our entire 
lives, lifetimes, goals, apsirations, and function, are to be a sherut 
leumi - a service to the entire Jewish nation, the focus of our efforts the 
advancement of Yahadus and Yehudim, the merit of our Avodah to be accrued 
to the collective merit of Am Yisroel and Kol ha'Olam Kullo

The army, for men, is a specific type of service that need be rendered to 
the Am ha'Yoshev b'Tziyon. This is clear.

But, the issue of a specific allocation of time for a specific form of 
service for women?

As Rabbanit Boublil has stated here several times, women need to think of 
their entire life and all of their life as SL (as do men!)...

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

Rabbi Bechhoffer's position (Areivim 143) is that no one today has the
stature to argue with the Chazon Ish about Sherut Leumi and by implication
that no sociological changes in religious society are relevant.
My understanding of the Halakhic process is that the authorities of each
era have the ability and responsibility to evaluate halakhic questions
in accordance with their understanding of the present circumstances.
(see the introduction to the first volume of the Igros Moshe)

Over fifty years of Sherut Leumi creates a reality that the Chazon Ish
could only have predicted. In the same way that many questioned whether
the heter mechira was appropriate under the present circumstances it
is equally in place to reevaluate positions taken a half century ago if
the society has changed.

In another discussion it was observed that there was a time that the
attitudes toward Zionism in Satmar and Lubavich were virtually identical.
Yet this did not prevent the Lubavicher Rebbe and the Satmar Rebbe
from taking diametrically opposite views on the Six-Day-War. My late
father-in-law (Rabbi Mordechai Pinchas Tietz) felt that the religious
parties in Israel lost the opportunity to unite and maximize their
influence because Aguda and Mizrachi were busy arguing about who had
been right about Zionism in stead of dealing with the realities of an
existing Jewish state.

Yosef Blau

> Without regard to the rest of the post, that's an  interesting word,
> mekatreig.  It comes from the word kategor, Gr. ...        But
> to become more pronounceable as a reflexive verb, it becomes mekatreig.  >>

Interestingly, there are lots of examples of that phenomenon in modern 
Hebrew as well.  One that comes to mind at the moment is 
l'khatleig - to catalog.  Also, l'talpen - to phone.

Shlomo Godick

From: "Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
> At 06:12 PM 5/9/01 -0400, Mordechai <Phyllostac@aol.com> wrote:
>> However, mentioned separately just before that, in MB # 13, appears
>> what seems to be a separate inyan of not gazing at the moon, for which
>> a reason is not given in the MB....
 
> The issur is in the Shela"h h'K' - see R' Moshe Tzuriel-Weiss's Beis 
> Yechezel (vol. 1) p. 37.

Thanks for the response. I do not have the Beis Yechezkel here. Can you
elaborate re what he and the Shala"h say and what (if any) relevance
it would have re my question re gazing at the moon in an astronomical
way? Do you have the exact mareh mokom in the Shala"h?

Thanks in advance.....
Mordechai

From: Isaac A Zlochower <zlochoia@bellatlantic.net>
> The question of what factual knowledge is contained in torah she'be'al
> peh has long been a point of contention between the rationalist and
> pietistic schools of thought....
>                         Why should we have to accept such assertions as
> simply a matter of belief, particularly, when these chachamim have not
> made such claims of knowledge for themselves? ...

I enjoyed reading the above fine post by R. YZ.

I would like to add the following (hopefully, I am not repeating what
others have already said) -

If the Torah contains all of Madda in an accessible manner, why did Rav
have to spend eighteen months among roei bokor to learn to distinguish
between mum kovua and mum oveir, as related in the gemara? If you will
respond that Rav was not on the madreiga to learn this from the Torah,
are you saying that Rav wasn't and the Chazon Ish and others in our era
are on a higher madreiga than Rav and can get it from Torah?

I think there is confusion here, along the following lines....

There may have been cases in the past, where difficult medical questions
/ cases were presented to gedolim like the Chazon Ish, who correctly
diagnosed the problem, while MD's erred. Some people therefore, on
the basis of such incidents, concluded that all of Madda is in Torah
in a form accessible to those on a sufficiently high level. However,
I suspect that (assuming the stories have been accurately reported)
they misunderstood what had actually happened.

Let's say, for example, that someone was diagnosed as having (chas
vesholom) a brain tumor requiring immediate surgery. A great godol was
then appoached on the matter and asked some questions and then said not to
operate. I think the godol's conclusion was not based on a vague belief
that Torah contains everything - rather he inquired in detail about
the particulars of the case, and then, based on his Torah knowledge of
areas of Torah related to the case at hand (e.g. halochos of what makes a
person ch"v a treifa), and perhaps by his general razor sharp analytical
skills and perception, he realized that the MD's had erred. For example,
he may have seen that the 'facts' did not all add up. For example, if
the tumor was as reported, there would be other side effects which were
not there ... He therefore said not to follow the MD's advice. Doctors
are fallible and many mistakes are made in medical practice and hospitals.

So basically, the godol knew the right way based on his knowledge of
hilchos treifos and generally keen analytical and intutitve powers -
not on the basis of anything 'mystical'.

People who did not understand this, related and accepted it as being a
mystical thing showing the supernatural greatness and power and power
of Torah - which does exist - but was not necessarily directly involved
in this case.

Another case mentioned in our literature where one of the Chaza"l
surprised people by being able to solve a problem by calculating 'iburo
shel nochosh' (gestation period of a snake) - despite the fact that he
was not a herpetologist - is also instructive in this regard. The gemoro
explains that he was able to make the calculation based on a simple,
typical Talmudic type analysis of the posuk that relates the cursing of
the nochosh. No resort to any mystical explanation.

re the mystical Kabbalistic approach that everything is in Torah -
I believe the Netzi"v speaks about it in his introduction to his sefer
on the Sheiltos d'Rav Achai Gaon.

Mordechai

From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
> On 9 May 2001, at 9:20, Howard Schild wrote:
>>                        ... is it just a "women's saying" or is there
>> an actual citable source to the statement that "a person who makes 3
>> shidduchim gets a chelek in olam haba"?
 
> I understood it was three shiduchim in a year.

It is called a 'hat trick' - causing three women to wear hats due to
marriage......and a hat trick gets the scorer a cheilek in olom habo....

I don't see why people pay much attention to such things - especially if
they are that are not found in Chaza"l - when there are plenty of ways
to get a 'cheilek in olam habo' that are mentioned by Chaza"l. Also,
what about 'kol Yisroel yesh lohem cheilek laolom habo...'? If they are
concerned about making it to olom habo or being denied entry - are they
on such dismal levels in their Yiddishkeit that they think they will
not qualify to get to olom habo in on any other basis?? If they are
just concerned about getting a bigger cheilek in olom habo, any mitzvos
should help with that - so why the focus on counting specific numbers
of shidduchim or mitzvas?

Also, if the shidduch later ends in divorce (esp. if it was bad to begin
with based on negligence or worse of shadchan), does the shadchan still
get credit / have their credit revoked?

Mordechai

In a message dated Mon, 14 May 2001  9:39:57am EDT, y.blau@att.net writes:
> Rabbi Bechhoffer's position (Areivim 143) is that no one today has the
> stature to argue with the Chazon Ish about Sherut Leumi and by implication
> that no sociological changes in religious society are relevant. ...

Is it possible that the sevara is similar to one we've discussed in the
past regarding changes in teva - that we only reflect them lchumra no
lkula ( I think R' Rich Wolpole was the disscussant). Perhaps similarly
here, even if the "mtziut" has changed, the chumra remains in place?

KT
Joel

At 02:24 AM 5/13/01 +0000, y.blau@att.net wrote:
>Rabbi Bechhoffer's position (Areivim 143) is that no one today has the
>stature to argue with the Chazon Ish about Sherut Leumi and by implication
>that no sociological changes in religious society are relevant.
>My understanding of the Halakhic process is that the authorities of each
>era have the ability and responsibility to evaluate halakhic questions
>in accordance with their understanding of the present circumstances.
>(see the introduction to the first volume of the Igros Moshe)
...

I am in full agreement with Rabbi Blau's philosophical contention.

My argument is that the Chazon Ish's statement must be taken in context - 
that means, not as public policy announcement based on 
socio-politco-economic circumstances, a "Charedi Zeitgeist" as it were, but 
as a Psak Halacha, based on the Ko'ach ha'Sevoro of a Gadol b'Torah.

This was not how it was being treated here (or, "there" - on Areivim).

If you (the proverbial "you") feel you fully comprehend the CI's sevoro, 
i.e., the rationale for his psak (I know that I do not!), and then feel you 
have an equally strong sevoro to debate him and dispute his Psak, rendering 
your own, you are certainly entitled to do so.

(In other areas one can argue based on text and proof - the absence of text 
in proof here makes the argument one of almost pure sevoro.)

That is the approach, and I believe we can agree that it is the only proper 
one. The problem, in my mind, was that this was not the approach that the 
conversation had adopted.


KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

On 13 May 2001, at 2:24, y.blau@att.net wrote:
> Over fifty years of Sherut Leumi creates a reality that the Chazon Ish
> could only have predicted. In the same way that many questioned whether
> the heter mechira was appropriate under the present circumstances it
> is equally in place to reevaluate positions taken a half century ago if
> the society has changed.

Are you familiar enough with the way Sheirut Leumi ran in the Chazon Ish's
time to set out what has changed? Is it just the fact that it has been up
and running for fifty years or has the way in which it has run changed in
a manner that makes it halachically acceptable? If the latter is the case,
what has changed? How do those changes answer the Chazon Ish's objections?

Thanks.

-- Carl

mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

From a most distinguished and impeccable source, an uncle of mine whose 
anonymity I will preserve:

>First of all, with all due respect to the Satmar Rebbe, the whole discussion
>is mute and irrelevant nowadays. a) Shut Avnei Nezer (YD:554 40ff.) states
>that it is not halachah lema'aseh. b) Well-known statement by R. Henkin that
>as the goyim broke their shevu'ah it negated the shevu'oh relating to us vis
>a vis the goyim (have not seen this in print with reasoning etc., but
>halachah mefureshes Sotah 10a and Yoreh de'ah 236:6, and see there Taz and
>others). c) Perhaps most important, these shevu'ot were for 1000 years only
>as stated in Berayta deR. Yishma'el in Pirkei Heichalot, cited by R. Chaim
>Vital, Intr. to Eitz Chayim (expanded on with further ref. in the
>book Mashiach (Hebrew ed., note 127).

>Re Lubavitch - all the Rabeyim were strongly anti-Zionist, not only Reshab;
>Reyatz and Nessi Doreinu no less. Even so, distinction between before '48 and
>after, as Reyatz said to Shazar after the partition-vote by UN. Moreover,
>there is a ref. to the shevu'ot by Rebbe in LS vol. 25, p. 438, where
>distinction is made re shelo ya'alu bachomah between what is given to us vs.
>what we set out to conquer on our own. I assume that included in 'what is
>given to us' is also what was taken in defensive war and now strategic for
>self-defense (e.g. 6-day war). In short, there is no question that the Rebbe
>does not regard the present state as a violation of the shevu'oh and regards
>it incumbent to defend our possession of it.

>I have not seen the context in which the question arose so restrict myself to
>these comments.

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

At 06:05 PM 5/13/01 -0400, Mordechai <Phyllostac@aol.com> wrote:
>>> However, mentioned separately just before that, in MB # 13, appears
>>> what seems to be a separate inyan of not gazing at the moon, for which
>>> a reason is not given in the MB....

>> The issur is in the Shela"h h'K' - see R' Moshe Tzuriel-Weiss's Beis
>> Yechezel (vol. 1) p. 37.

>Thanks for the response. I do not have the Beis Yechezkel here. Can you
>elaborate re what he and the Shala"h say and what (if any) relevance...

He says "Defus Amsterdam p. 74", quotes the Chida Avodas ha'Kodesh 6:186, 
and gives no reason nor rationale. I always thought (not having seen the 
primary sources inside) that it had something to do with "havi'u alai 
kapporo al she'mi'ateti es ha'yorei'ach".

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

It is interesting to note the machlokes between the Ramban, Rambam and the
Bahag as to how many of the Taryag mitzvos is/are the chiyuv of beis din
to mete out misah.

The Ramban says there is only one chiyuv: uvi'arta hara'ah mikirbecha.

The Rambam counts four, a separate asei for each type of misah.

The Bahag counts one asei for each kind of aveirah that gets that punishment.

As for sevara:

The Ramban clearly associates the chiyuv misah with the need to protect
*society* -- be it from becoming victims, or from learning from this person's
behavior.

R' Chanania segan hakohanim (Avos 3:2) tells us to daven for a stable
government, because otherwise ish es rei'eihu chayim bal'o. It would seem
that regardless of the basis for penology for beis din, he is focussing
on the importance of Benei Noach to have laws to protect society.

It is tempting to say that the Rambam associates the chiyuv with its
effect on the *chotei*, presumably because misah michapeir, which is why
each experience for the chotei is a different mitzvah.

However, the Chinuch also counts four mitzvos, and associates sayaf
(the first of the four in his count) with the danger of letting hotheads
roam the community. So this reasoning isn't muchrach. In either case, I
like the thought enough even with this problem to want to share it.

The Bahag seems to focus on the punishment as a statement of the severity
of the *cheit*, which would explain why each cheit's onesh is its own
mitzvah.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 37th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability
(973) 916-0287                        require one to be strict with another?

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]